Breaking News

Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining means pre trial negotiations between the
prosecution and the accused during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in
return for certain concessions promised by the prosecution, e.g. to recommend a
lesser or specific sentence or to drop or reduce some charges.

The object of Plea Bargaining is to reduce the risk of
undesirable orders for the either side. One another reason for the introducing
the concept of ‘Plea Bargaining’ is the fact that most of the criminal courts
are over burdened with the number of cases and hence unable to dispose off the
cases on merits.

The concept of plea bargaining was widely used in the America
but it was introduced in India by way of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005,
when a new Chapter XXI-A was inserted which came into effect from 5-7-2006.

Plea Bargaining will not be applicable in respect of those
offences for which punishment is above a period of 7 years. Moreover it also
does not apply to cases where the offence committed is a socio-economic offence
or where the offence is committed is committed against a woman or a child below
the age of 14 years.

Though plea bargaining helps in fast disposal of the cases
and also in lessening the burden of the courts, still it has some drawbacks.
They are:

i.Involving
the victim in the process of plea bargaining can result in the threatening of
the victim by the accused

ii.It
would invite coercion if police if involved in plea bargaining

iii.It
might affect the court’s impartiality

iv.Also
if the plead guilty application of the accused in rejected then the accused
would be difficult for him to prove himself innocent.

Supreme Court in the case of Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat and Another
(1980) strongly disapproved the practice of plea bargain again. It observed
that practice of plea bargaining is unconstitutional, illegal and would tend to
encourage corruption, collusion and pollute the pure fount of justice.

Further, the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (2000), held that it is settled
law that on the basis of Plea Bargaining court cannot dispose of the criminal
cases. Going by the basic principles of administration of justice merits alone
should be considered for conviction and sentencing, even when the accused
confesses to guilt, it is the constitutional obligation of the court to award
appropriate sentence. Court held in this case that mere acceptance or admission
of the guild should not be reason for giving a lesser sentence. Accused cannot bargain
for reduction of sentence because he pleaded guilty.